Do Salafis really follow the daleel

h

Do

Salafis

Really

Follow the Daleel

Compiled by
Dr. Sadi Kose

2016

Table of Content

About the Booklet 4

First Example 5

Why Anti-Madhabism was Written 5

About the Transcript of the Dialog 5

About the Dialog 6

The Dialog 8

Was Shaykh Albani Faithful to his Declared Principle? 15

Second Example 15

Third Example 16

What Did Imams Mean by “If the hadith is authentic, it is my way” 20

About the Booklet

Oftentimes we, the madhab followers, are confronted by those who describe themselves as Salafis, for not
following daleel (evidence) but instead following a madhab. I have come across some who cannot even read a
verse of the Qur’an without making serious mistakes, yet they claim to be able to interpret and follow the daleel.
One wonders how can someone in such a state follow and interpret daleel ? Through a series of exchanges and
observations, I found them to be nothing more than blind imitators of the contemporary Salafi teachers. These
very teachers claim to understand, interpret, and follow the daleel all while promoting anti-madhabism. At
length, I came to realize that when a young man of utmost ignorance claims to follow the deleel instead of im-
itating an Imaam of a madhab, he is in fact insinuating that his Salafi teacher follows the daleel but the Imaams
of the four madhabs don’t. Thus, I wanted to find out to what extent the learned Salafis or the Salafi teachers
themselves follow the daleel (evidence). What is meant by “following the daleel ” is that a qualified scholar gath-
ers, on a given subject, all the proofs and then derives a ruling following the thorough analysis of the complete
body of evidence (daleel). This involves sifting through a quarter of a million hadith spread across more than
three hundred hadith books as well as hundreds of volumes of books of each madhab.

One of the prominent Salafi teachers by the name of Shaykh Albani put it as follows:

“I examine the positions of the Imams 1 and their evidences for them, and then take the closest of them to
the evidence of the Qur’an and Sunna”

Thus, if we find a learned Salafi giving fatwas without knowing the positions or the evidences of the Imams, he
is betraying this principle.

I selected three examples from learned Salafis, including the owner of the above quotation, to demonstrate to
the reader that in fact Salafi teachers do not adhere to their own principle. If they stopped at that, we would
have said that is their choice. But they go on declaring some of the practices of the madhabs as INVALID or
CONTRARY to the sunna without having looked at the evidences used by the madhabs.

So, if the Salafis themselves do not strictly follow the daleel, then why do they call the madhab followers to their
way under the slogan of “Follow the Daleel from Qur’an and Sunna!”? I will attempt to answer this question at
the end of the booklet God willing.

May Allah make this little effort a means by which the truth can be understood. All praise is due to Allah and
may His peace and blessings be upon our master Muhammed, upon his family, his companions and upon those
who follow in his footsteps until the day of judgment. Ameen!

Dr. S. Rose

sendmeabook@hotmail.com
United States of America
2016

1 Later in the booklet, under the title “What Did The Imams Mean by “If the hadith is authentic, it is my

way””, I listed a selection of the books of Hanafi madhab just to show the reader what it will take to examine
the evidence of one madhab let alone four.

First Example

1 took this example from Dr. Boutis book called “Anti-Madhabism: The Most Dangerous Innovation Threat-
ening Islam 2 ”. It is a dialog between Dr. Bouti and Shaykh Albani. I will quote portions of Dr. Boutis book
before introducing the dialog in order to provide a background and a context so that the dialog can be better
understood.

Why Anti-Madhabism was Written

Dr. Bouti relates on page 31 of Ant-Madhabism, the conversation that lead him to author the book as follows:

“One of the students of the Department of Literature at Damascus University came to me saying he started
taking religion seriously and had commenced performing his worship regularly. He said that he studied a
booklet on fiqh (jurisprudence) according to the School of Imaam Al-Shafii and now he worships in accor-
dance with this school. He informed me that he came across a booklet 3 which said:”

“It is not permissible for a Muslim to adhere strictly to any one of the four schools of thought ( mad -
habs ) and that whosoever does this becomes a disbeliever and has gone astray from the straight path of
Islam. What a Muslim is obliged to do is to take the rulings directly from the Qur’an and the tradition
of the Prophet (pbuh).”

“The student went on to say that he is not even able to recite Qur’an correctly let alone understand the true
meaning of the verses and the rulings contained therein. He concluded by asking “How can someone in his
state be expected to derive the rulings directly from the sacred texts?””

Dr. Bouti says in so many words that he could not keep silent and let people do as they wish using laughable,
absurd and insane evidence such as was done by the author of the booklet mentioned above.

Dr. Bouti says on page 13-14:

“I realized what distress many Muslims have been experiencing from those who are incessantly trying to
severe our link with the four schools of thought and the trustworthy Imams. The majority of those who
suffer are ordinary Muslims who have sound judgment by which they realize that the call of the anti-mad-
habists is steeped in falsehood and this call cannot sit well in the heart of the conscious believers. Hence,
the Muslims look up to those who can equip them with evidences and a moderate criteria of judgment and
they are in a dire need of a concise book that will help them counter the [deception of anti-madhabism].”

Thus, Dr. Bouti decides to write one of his masterpieces called “Anti-Madhabism: The Most Dangerous Inno-
vation Threatening Islam 4 ”. May Allah reward him and have mercy on him for this excellent work.

About the Transcript of the Dialog

Dr. Bouti says on page 13:

“My Lord knows that I never attributed to anyone anything that they did not say. All I quoted in this book
from the discussion that took place between me and one of those [anti-madhabists], is reproduced without
changing anything except what was said using colloquial language is converted into classical Arabic.”

About the Dialog

Dr. Bouti says on pages 15-22”

“[With respect to my discussion with Al- Albani] the gist of it is that Shaykh Al- Albani expressed interest

2 Al-Lamadhabiyya: Akhtaru Binatin Tuhaddid al-Sharia Al-Islamiyya

3 The student is referring to the booklet by Al-Khajandi titled “Is a Muslim Obliged to Strictly Follow
One of the Four Madhabs?”

4 Al-Lamadhabiyya: Akhtaru Binatin Tuhaddid al-Sharia Al-Islamiyya

in meeting with me to share his views of my book. We met and I listened to his remarks and views which
can be summarized in two points:

First, he found the title of my book inappropriate; In his view, I did not provide the necessary proof that
would support the claim that ‘Anti-Madhabism is the most dangerous innovation threatening Islam’. He
even found my title dangerous.

Second, in his view, I refuted the booklet by Al-Khajandi but did not understand it well. According to
Shaykh Nasir, Al- Khajandi does not deny the importance of the schools of thoughts ( madhabs ) nor their
origin or development. Nor does he deny the validity of following these schools for the one who is not a
jurist ( ijtihad ). What he opposes is the strict partisanship to a school [in every issue] ignoring the evidence
which one (a jurist, not a regular person) understands and comprehends. This statement was the only point
that Shykh Nasir and I agreed upon [I do not agree that this was also Al-Khajandi’s view] and all that hap-
pened [during the 3 hours] was a waste of time.

I told him in regards to his first concern that my book is full of proof supporting the veracity of its title.
One of the most important points that I wanted to clarify in my book is that both the Muslims at the time
of the companions and the followers who came after them who were not jurists (ie mujtahid-thej have the
qualification to derive rulings directly from Qur’an and Sunna) themselves in fact followed a jurist. They
had the option to strictly follow one Imaam (jurist) for life or switch to another Imaam. There were some
companions who were only content with the verdicts of Ibn Abbas (ra) and they would not ask anyone
else for verdicts. No researcher ever uncovered any statement from any of the companions that this was
an unacceptable practice. The people of Iraq followed the school of Ibn Masood (ra) for a long time either
taking their religion directly from him or his students and yet no one among the scholars ever rebuked
them for this “blind” following. In the same way, the people in Hijaz adhered to the verdicts of Ibn Omar
(ra) and his students and companions for a long time yet again no scholar ever admonished them for this
practice. In Mecca, Ataa bin Abi Rabaah and Mujahid were the sole issuers of legal verdicts for a long time
such that the Caliph issued a declaration that no one besides these two were allowed to issues legal verdicts
yet no scholars among the followers ever blamed or opposed the Caliph for [forcing people to ’’blindly”
follow only these two scholars].

After all of this, wouldn’t the statement that “a strict following of a particular Imaam’s school of thought is
a blameworth y innovation” be a baseless claim of falsehood? Isn’t this none other than anti-madhabism 5 ?”

5 [Dr. Bouti]The issue can be further clarified as follows: Madhabism means that an ordinary person
or the one who has not reached the level of a jurist ( mujtahid) imitates an Imaam by following his school all
his life or switches from one school to another after a while.

Anti-Madhabism means neither the ordinary people nor those who are still not at level of a jurist (mujtahid)
have to follow an Imaam neither strictly nor otherwise. This definition is what is understood linguistically
speaking as well as technically speaking among the specialists. If you say for example someone is a partisan,
it is understood that he is associated with a group irrespective of if he has been with the same group all his
life or if he was transferred recently. Except that Shaykh Nasir argues that this is not what every Muslim
understands from this word.

I don’t understand why this man keeps thinking that everyone must understand in the same way that he
[Shaykh Nasir] understands and that his conclusion is the yardstick for what is truth and whatever is in
contradiction with his understanding must be rejected by all?! He did not know the meaning of the words
madhabism and anti-madhabism in the way that I explained during the discussion I had with him, yet he
expected every Muslim to understand those two words as he understood.

He also argues that my book is invalid because I stick to the above definition and that no Muslims be they
followers of a school of thought or not will agree with me, thus my book talks about an imaginary, nonexis-
tent concept.

We wish to guide them back to the straight path of Islam, but none accepts abiding by any of the four imams.
Rather they all claimed that everyone must make his own rulings directly from the Quran and Sunna (as he
sees fit). Frequently we see even illiterates refusing to accept the verdicts of any of the four Imaams until
we disclose the evidence of the Imaam, and the hadith that the Imaam relied upon then we are expected to
explain to him the authenticity of the hadith and its chain all the way down to the analysis of the individual
narrators as if he himself is an expert in the field of science of chains of transmitters and science of criti-
cism and authentication. Only then will this illiterate decide whether the Imaam was right or he will cross

As for what is between me and him [Al-Albani] regarding the second point, stems from his abominable
interpretation of what is in my book of the truth.

Al-Khajandi says: “As for the [four] schools, they are the collection of the opinions of the scholars that nei-
ther Allah the Exalted nor His Prophet (pbuh) ordered anyone to follow.” This statement of Al-Khajandi,
according to Shaykh Nasir, is directed to those who have reached to the level of a jurist ( mujtahid ) and
these are the people referred to by the word “anyone”.

Al-Khajandi says: “: “Mastering this way -that is extracting the rulings directly from the Qur’an and Sun-
na- is easy and doesn’t require more than Al-Muwatta, the two authentics of Bukhari and Muslim, Sunan
Abi Dawood, Jami’ al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasai. These books are known and famous (easily accessible). One
can master them in no time. You must learn them. If you are unable and you know a brother who has al-
ready studied them, you should have him teach you these books. Thereafter, you will have no excuse [not to
draw your own rulings].” Once again, according to Shaykh Nasir, the above statement is directed towards
those who have the prerequisites of issuing legal verdicts ( ijtihad ) and thus Al-Khajandi’s statement is, ac-
cording to the Shaykh, is correct and needs no further response or exegesis.

Al-Khajandi further says: “If there are multiple narrations from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) regarding
some matters and you don’t know the chronological order of the narrations, then you must act according
to one sometime and according to other some other time [this way you will have practiced according to
all narrations] .”

Al-Khajandi says: “When one finds a Quranic text, prophetic tradition or statements of the companions
(may Allah be pleased with them all), one must take it. One cannot turn to the opinions of the scholars in
this case.” According to Shaykh Nasir, this is for people who have studied the fundamentals of the Islamic
law whereby they understand the types and various uses of the proofs or evidences.

And so on...

Thus, all that is found in the booklet of Al-Khajandi in terms of statements similar to those just quoted,
must be interpreted, according to Shaykh Nasir, to coincide with the truth that we have stated. He was of
the opinion that we should interpret Al-Khajandi’s book in a way that is acceptable by making specializa-
tions as necessary. I told him that none of our scholars make absolute statements like these then expect
the reader to understand other than what his words mean. Furthermore, no one understands or interprets
Al-Khajandi’s statements like you do. His response was: “This man is from Bukhara and Arabic is not his
Imaam’s verdict out as mistake.

These people are not martians or from another planet. Rather they are the children of Adam (as) that people
of every locality, every city and every village complain about. They are not so few in numbers and Shaykh
Nasir is proud of them.

Shaykh Nasir callas Al-Khajandi a great scholar and describes his book as beneficial. [Let’s listen to what
Al-Khajandi says in his so called beneficial book]: Al-Khajandi says: “Mastering this way -that is extracting
the rulings directly from the Qur’an and Sunna- is easy and doesn’t require more than Al-Muwatta, the two
authentics of Bukhari and Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawood, Jami’ al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasai. These books are
known and famous (easily accessible). One can master them in no time. You must learn them. If you are
unable and you know a brother who has already studied them, you should have him teach you these books.
Thereafter, you will have no excuse [not to draw your own rulings].” He further says: “If there are multiple
narrations from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) regarding some matters and you don’t know the chronological
order of the narrations, then you must act according to one sometime and according to other some other
time [this way you will have practiced according to all narrations].”

Do you find, dear reader, in the above statement any sign of respect for following four schools? Yet when we
pointed the anti-madhabist tone of Al-Khajandi’s view out to Shaykh Nasir, he disagreed with our interpre-
tation and said that all people are madhabists.

Does not Al-Khajandi block the way for people to follow the madhabs when places in front of them the fa-
mous Al-Muwatta, the two authentics of Bukhari and Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawood, Jami’ al-Tirmidhi and
al-Nasai and says that these books can be mastered in no time in that Allah Almighty saved the believers
from having to imitating the madhabs either one of them or some of them.

Shaykh Nasir may very well know that all the great scholars including Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim and
al-Shawkani will tell you that mastering the above books does not make one mujtahid (independent jurist)
and that one cannot depend solely on these books in deriving the verdicts. Rather, one must have mastered
other prerequisite sciences in order to reach a level of expertise required for a mujtahid. This is in total con-
tradiction to what Al-Khajandi says in his booklet, which, according to Shaykh Nasir, is a beneficial book.

mother tongue thus he is not able to express himself like an Arab would in Arabic. In addition he has al-
ready passed away -and he is a Muslim- we must think well of him and interpret his words in a way that
is acceptable in Islam.”

This is a summary of what happened between me and Shaykh Nasir during the 3 hour meeting which was
recorded.

He sent me a letter later on suggesting that we meet again. I wrote to him back saying:

“As for your suggestion that we meet again, I noticed during the first meeting , as I told you, that we
did not benefit from it at all. Neither you changed your views regarding the innocence of Al-Khajandi,
nor was I convinced that you have any grounds to stand on in the way that you interpreted his words.

I think that if you showed a quarter of the tolerance to Shaykh Muhyiddeen bin Arabi that you show
to Al-Khajandi in interpreting his words, you would not have declared Ibn Arabi a disbeliever or per-
verted transgressor.

In any case, yesterday all you did was defend Al-Khajandi and indicate that his words must be under-
stood as you understand them and that I am not interpreting his words correctly.

Whether Al-Kajandi meant what you understood or what the rest of the world would understands
from his words, I am happy to know that you disagree with the conclusions that I draw from Al-Kha-
jandi s words. I would be happy if you would write a commentary on Khajandi’s book and explain to
the people what he really meant and publicize your respect for the four Imams and that in your view
those who have not reached the level of ijtihad must follow one of the [four] schools.

As for the meeting you are proposing, I don’t see any benefit coming out of it. From our meeting yes-
terday I learned one thing; that is, I wasted 3 hours that I could have used to do some beneficial work.
Sincerely yours!”

Dr. Bouti says:

“Thereafter the proponents of anti-madhabism spread falsehood regarding the discussion that took place
between me and Shaykh Nasir. They are of no value that I should respond to them or comment on them.

I hope all that I have done in this regard was purely to serve the religion of Islam and I don’t expect any
reward from anyone other than the Lord of the Worlds (Exalted in Might). Therefore, let the liars say about
me what they wish.

I would like to dwell on one of the lies that they spread to show the reader the truth. That is they claimed
that my respected father, may Allah preserve him, who was present during part of the discussion, agreed
with Shaykh Nasir and disapproved of my refusal of his views.

I should not keep quiet about this scandalous news otherwise they will use this to deceive the common
people to legitimize their misguidance claiming that the jurist of Damascus (my father) Al-Shaykh Molla
Ramadan agreed with and supported the most prominent proponent of anti-madhabism.

Because of this, may father, may Allah preserve him, asked me to make it clear to the reader that their claim
is no more than a slanderous lie. The recording of our discussion serves as the best witness to this fact. At
the end of this introduction 6 , the reader will find my father’s disclaimer with his signature.”

The Dialog 7

Bouti 8 : “What is your method for understanding the rulings of Allah? Do you take them from the
Qur’an and Sunna, or from the Imams of independent ijtihad ?”

Albani: “I examine the positions of the Imams and their evidences for them, and then take
the closest of them to the evidence of the Qur’an and Sunna 9 .”

6 Not included in this booklet. Please see the Al-Lamdhabiyya (pages 27-28)

7 Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller described this dialog as "a conversation that took place in Damascus
between Shari‘a professor Muhammad Said al-Bouti, and a Salafi teacher”

8 Al-Lamdhabiyya (pages 134-148)

9 The is the advertised principle of the modern Salafis including Shaykh Al-Albani himself. Let’s read
on to see if he keeps his word and stays faithful to this principle!

Bouti: “You have five thousand Syrian pounds that you have saved for six months. You then buy
merchandise and begin trading with it. When do you pay zakat on the merchandise, after six months,
or after one year?”

Albani: [He 10 thought, and said,] “Your question implies you believe zakat should be paid
on business capital.”

Bouti: “I am just asking. You should answer in your own way. Here in front of you is a library contain-
ing books of Qur’anic exegesis, hadith, and the works of the mujtahid Imams.”

Albani: [He reflected for a moment, then said,] “Brother, this is deen, and not simple matter.
One could answer from the top of one’s head, but it would require thought, research, and
study; all of which take time. And we have come to discuss something else.”

Bouti: I dropped the question and said, “All right. Is it obligatory for every Muslim to examine the
evidences for the positions of the Imams, and adopt the closest of them to the Qur’an and Sunna?”

Albani: “Yes.”

Bouti: “This means that all people possess the same capacity for ijtihad that the Imams of the
madhhabs have; or even greater, since without a doubt, anyone who can judge the positions of the
Imams and evaluate them according to the measure of the Qur’an and sunna must know more than
all of them.”

Albani: [He said,] “In reality, people are of three categories: the muqallid or ‘follower of
qualified scholarship without knowing the primary textual evidence (of Qur’an and had-
ith)’; the muttabi', or ‘follower of primary textual evidence’; and the mujtahid, or scholar
who can deduce rulings directly from the primary textual evidence (ijtihad). He who com-
pares between madhhabs and chooses the closest of them to the Qur’an is a muttabi ' , a
follower of primary textual evidence, which is an intermediate degree between following
scholarship ( taqlid ) and deducing rulings from primary texts (ijtihad).”

Bouti: “Then what is the follower of scholarship ( muqallid ) obliged to do?”

Albani: “To follow the mujtahid he agrees with.”

Bouti: “Is there any difficulty in his following one of them, adhering to him, and not changing?”
Albani: “Yes there is. It is unlawful ( haram ).”

Bouti: “What is the proof that it is unlawful?”

Albani: “The proof is that he is obliging himself to do something Allah Mighty and Majestic
has not obligated him to.”

Bouti: I said, “Which of the seven canonical readings ( qira’at ) do you recite the Qur’an in?”

Albani: “That of Hafs.”

Bouti: “Do you recite only in it, or in a different canonical reading each day.”

Albani: “No. I recite only in it.”

10 Please note that the dialog is narrated by Dr. Bouti and so what is in square braces is his narrative.

Bouti: “Why do you read only it when Allah Mighty and Majestic has not obliged you to do anything
except to recite the Qur’an as it has been conveyed — with the total certainty of tawatur (being con-
veyed by witnesses so numerous at every stage of transmission that their sheer numbers obviate
the possibility of forgery or alteration), from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)?”

Albani: “Because I have not had a opportunity to study other canonical readings, or recite
the Qur’an except in this way.”

Bouti: “But the individual who learns the fiqh of the Shafi'i school — he too has not been able to study
other madhhabs or had the opportunity to understand the rules of his religion except from this Imam.
So if you say that he must know all the ijtihads of the Imams so as to go by all of them, it follows that
you too must learn all the canonical readings so as to recite in all of them. And if you excuse your-
self because you cannot, you should excuse him also. In any case, what I say is: where did you get
that it is obligatory for a follower of scholarship ( muqallid ) to keep changing from one madhhab to
another, when Allah has not obliged him to? That is, just as he is not obliged to adhere to a particular
madhhab, neither is he obliged to keep changing.”

Albani: “What is unlawful for him is adhering to one while believing that Allah has com-
manded him to do so.”

Bouti: “That is something else, and is true without a doubt and without any disagreement among
scholars. But is there any problem with his following a particular mujtahid, knowing that Allah has
not obliged him to do that?”

Albani: “There is no problem.”

Bouti: [Al-Khajnadi’s] book, which you teach from, contradicts you. It says this is unlawful, in some
places actually asserting that someone who adheres to a particular Imam and no other is an unbe-
liever (kafir).”

Albani: [He said,] “Where?” [and then began looking at the book, considering its texts and
expressions, reflecting on the words of the author[ “Whoever follows one of them in particu-
lar in all questions is a blind, imitating, mistaken bigot, and is “among those who have divid-
ed their religion and are parties” [Qur’an 30:32], [He said,] “By follows, he means someone
who believes it legally obligatory for him to do so. The wording is a little incomplete.”

Bouti: [I said,] “What evidence is there that that’s what he meant? Why don’t you just say the author
was mistaken?”

Albani: He insisted that the expression was correct, that it should be understood as contain-
ing an unexpressed condition [i.e. “provided one believes it is legally obligatory”], and he
exonerated the writer from any mistake in it.

Bouti: [I said,] “But interpreted in this fashion, the expression does not address any opponent or
have any significance. Not a single Muslim is unaware that following such and such a particular
Imam is not legally obligatory. No Muslim does so except from his own free will and choice.”

Albani: “How should this be, when I hear from many common people and some schol-
ars that it is legally obligatory to follow one particular school, and that a person may not
change to another?”

Bouti: “Name one person from the ordinary people or scholars who said that to you.” He said noth-

ing, and seemed surprised that what I said could be true, and kept repeating that he had thought
that many people considered it unlawful to change from one madhhab to another. I said, “You won’t
find anyone today who believes this misconception, though it is related from the latter times of the
Ottoman period that they considered a Hanafi changing from his own school to another to be an
enormity. And without a doubt, if true, this was something that was complete nonsense from them;
a blind, hateful bigotry.”

I then said, “Where did you get this distinction between the muqallid “follower of scholarship” and
the muttabi‘ “follower of evidence”: Is there a original, lexical distinction [in the Arabic language], or
is it merely terminological?”

Albani: “There is a lexical difference."

Bouti: I brought him lexicons with which to establish the lexical difference between the two words,
and he could not find anything. I then said: “Abu Bakr (Allah be well pleased with him) said to a des-
ert Arab who had objected to the allotment for him agreed upon by the Muslims, ‘If the Emigrants
accept, you are but followers’ — using the word “followers” ( tabi' ) to mean ‘without any prerogative
to consider, question, or discuss.’” (Similar to this is the word of Allah Most High, “When those who
were followed ( uttubi'u ) disown those those who followed ( attaba‘u ) upon seeing the torment, and
their relations are sundered” (Qur’an 2:166), which uses follow ( ittiba ‘) for the most basic blind imi-
tation).

Albani: [He said,] “Then let it be a technical difference: don’t I have a right to establish a
terminological usage?”

Bouti: “Of course. But this term of yours does not alter the facts. This person you term a muttabi‘
(follower of scholarly evidence) will either be an expert in evidences and the means of textual de-
duction from them, in which case he is a mujtahid. Or, if not an expert or unable to deduce rulings
from them, then he is muqallid (follower of scholarly conclusions). And if he is one of these on some
questions, and the other on others, then he is a muqallid for some and a mujtahid for others. In any
case, it is an either-or distinction, and the ruling for each is clear and plain.”

Albani: [He said,] “The muttabi 1 is someone able to distinguish between scholarly positions
and the evidences for them, and to judge one to be stronger than others. This is a level dif-
ferent to merely accepting scholarly conclusions.

Bouti: “If you mean,” I said, “by distinguishing between positions differentiating them according to
the strength or weakness of the evidence, this is the highest level of ijtihad. Are you personally able
to do this?”

Albani: “I do so as much as I can.”

Bouti: “I am aware,” I said, “that you give as a fatwas that a three fold pronouncement of divorce on
a single occasion only counts as one time. Did you check, before this fatwa of yours, the positions
of the Imams and their evidences on this, then differentiate between them, so to give the fatwa ac-
cordingly? Now, ‘Uwaymir al-‘Ajlani pronounced a three fold divorce at one time in the presence of
the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) after he had made public imprecation against her
for adultery ( li‘an ), saying, ‘If I retain her, O Messenger of Allah, I will have lied against her: she is
[hereby] thrice divorced.’ What do you know about this hadith and its relation to this question, and
its bearing as evidence for the position of the scholarly majority [that a threefold divorce pronounced
on a single occasion is legally finalized and binding] as opposed to the position of Ibn Taymiya [that
a threefold divorce on a single occasion only counts as once]?”

Albani: “I did not know this hadith.”

Bouti: “Then how could you give a fatwa on this question that contradicts what the four madhhabs
unanimously concur upon, without even knowing their evidence, or how strong or weak it was?
Here you are, discarding the principle you say you have enjoined on yourself and mean to enjoin on
us, the principle of “following scholarly evidence (ittiba 1 )” in the meaning you have terminologically
adopted.”

Albani: “At the time I didn't own enough books to review the positions of the Imams 11 and
their evidence.”

Bouti: “Then what made you rush into giving a fatwa contravening the vast majority of Muslims,
when you hadn’t even seen any of their evidences?”

Albani: “What else could I do? I was asked and I only had a limited amount of scholarly
resources."

Bouti: “You could have done what all scholars and Imams have done; namely, say “I didn’t know,”
or told the questioner the position of both the four madhhabs and the position of those who contra-
vene them; without giving a fatwa for either side. You could have done this, or rather, this was what
was obligatory for you, especially since the problem was not personally yours so as to force you
to reach some solution or another. As for your giving a fatwa contradicting the consensus (ijma‘) of
the four Imams without knowing — by your own admission — their evidences, sufficing yourself with
the agreement in your heart for the evidences of the opposition, this is the very utmost of the kind
of bigotry you accuse us of.”

Albani: “I read the Imams' opinions in [Nay/ al-owtor, by] Shawkani, Subul al-salam [by al-
Amir al-$an‘ani], and Fiqh al-sunna by Sayyid Sabiq.”

Bouti: These are the books of the opponents of the four Imams on this question. All of them speak
from one side of the question, mentioning the proofs that buttress their side. Would you be willing to
judge one litigant on the basis of his words alone, and that of his witnesses and relatives?”

Albani: I see nothing blameworthy in what I have done. I was obliged to give the questioner
an answer, and this was as much as I was able to reach with my understanding.”

Bouti: “You say you are a “follower of scholarly evidence ( muttabi “)” and we should all be likewise.
You have explained “following evidence” as reviewing the positions of all madhhabs, studying their
evidences, and adopting the closest of them to the correct evidence — while in doing what you have
done, you have discarded the principle completely. You know that the unanimous consensus of the
four madhhabs is that a threefold pronouncement of divorce on one occasion counts as a three fold,
finalized divorce, and you know that they have evidences for this that you are unaware of, despite
which you turn from their consensus to the opinion that your personal preference desires. Were you
certain beforehand that the evidence of the four Imams deserved to be rejected?”

Albani: No; but I wasn’t aware of them, since I didn't have any reference works on them.”
Bouti: “Then why didn’t you wait? Why rush into it, when Allah never obligated you to do anything
of the sort? Was your not knowing the evidences of the scholarly majority a proof that Ibn Taymiya
was right? Is t he bigotry you wrongly accuse us of anything besides this?”

1 1 What a lame excuse for someone whose advertised principle is “to examine the positions of the
Imams and their evidences for them, and then take the closest of them to the evidence of the Qur’an and
Sunna”!!! Could he not walk into just about any bookstore and take a look at one of the basic books of the
madhabs? Or could he not locate it in the library that supposedly he spent countless hours? Dr. Bouti,
through his genius, exposed Shaykh Al-Albani as someone who betrays his own principle and is not honest
about the methodology (if any) he follows. If the leader of the modern Slafis is unable to fulfill this principle,
what about the ordinary people or even the graduates of a 4-year Sharia school?

Albani: “I read evidences in the books available to me that convinced me. Allah has not
enjoined me to do more than that.”

Bouti: “If a Muslim sees a proof for something in a the books he reads, is that a sufficient reason to
disregard the madhhabs that contradict his understanding, even if he doesn’t know their evidences?”

Albani: “It is sufficient.”

Bouti: “A young man, newly religious, without any Islamic education, reads the word of Allah Most
High “To Allah belongs the place where the sun rises and where it sets: wherever you turn, there is
the countenance of Allah. Verily, Allah is the All-encompassing, the All-knowing (Qur’an 2:115), and
gathers from it that a Muslim may face any direction he wishes in his prescribed prayers, as the
apparent meaning of the verse implies. But he has heard that the four Imams unanimously concur
upon the necessity of his facing towards the Kaaba, and he knows they have evidences for it that
he is unaware of. What should he do when he wants to pray? Should he follow his conviction from
the evidence available to him, or follow the Imam who unanimously concur on the contrary of what
he has understood?”

Albani: “He should follow his conviction.”

Bouti: “And pray towards the east for example. And his prayer would be legally valid?”

Albani: “Yes. He is morally responsible for following his personal conviction.”

Bouti: “What if his personal conviction leads him to believe there is no harm in making love to his
neighbor’s wife, or to fill his belly with wine, or wrongfully take others’ property: will all this be miti-
gated in Allah’s reckoning by “personal conviction”?

Albani: [He was silent for a moment, then said,] “Anyway, the examples you ask about are
all fantasies that do not occur.”

Bouti: “They are not fantasies; how often the like of them occurs, or even stranger. A young man
without any knowledge of Islam, its Book, its sunna, who happens to hear or read this verse by
chance, and understands from it what any Arab would from its outward purport, that there is no harm
in someone praying facing any direction he wants — despite seeing people’s facing towards the Kaa-
ba rather than any other direction. This is an ordinary matter, theoretically and practically, as long
as there are those among Muslims who don’t know a thing about Islam. In any event, you have pro-
nounced upon this example — imaginary or real — a judgment that is not imaginary, and have judged
“personal conviction” to be the decisive criterion in any event. This contradicts your differentiating
people into three groups: followers of scholars without knowing their evidence ( muqallidin ), followers
of scholars’ evidence ( muttabi'in ), and mujtahids.”

Albani: “Such a person is obliged to investigate. Didn’t he read any hadith, or any other
Qur’anic verse?”

Bouti: He didn’t have any reference works available to him, just as you didn’t have any when you
gave your fatwa on the question of [threefold] divorce. And he was unable to read anything other
than this verse connected with facing the qibla and its obligatory character. Do you still insist that he
must follow his personal conviction and disregard the Imams’ consensus?”

Albani: “Yes. If he is unable to evaluate and investigate further, he is excused, and it is
enough for him to rely on the conclusions his evaluation and investigation lead him to.”

Bouti: “I intend to publish these remarks as yours. They are dangerous, and strange.

Albani: “Publish whatever you want. I’m not afraid.”

Bouti: “How should you be afraid of me, when you are not afraid of Allah Mighty and Majestic, utterly
discarding by these words the word of Allah Mighty and Majestic [in Sura al-Nahl] ‘Ask those who
recall if you know not’ (Qur’an 16:43).”

Albani: “My brother,” [he said,] “These Imams are not divinely protected from error (mo ‘sum).
As for the Quranic verse that this person followed [in praying any direction], it is the word
of Him Who Is Protected from All Error, may His glory be exalted. How should he leave the
divinely protected and attach himself to the tail of the non-divinely-protected?"

Bouti: “Good man, what is divinely protected from error is the true meaning that Allah intended by
saying, “To Allah belongs the place where the sun rises and where it sets . . .” — not the understand-
ing of the young man who is as far as can be from knowing Islam, its rulings, and the nature of its
Qur’an. That is to say, the comparison I am asking you to make is between two understandings: the
understanding of this ignorant youth, and the understanding of the mujtahid Imams, neither of which
is divinely protected from error, but one of which is rooted in ignorance and superficiality, and the
other of which is rooted in investigation, knowledge, and accuracy.”

Albani: “Allah does not make him responsible for more than his effort can do.”

Bouti: “Then answer me this question. A man has a child who suffers from some infections, and is
under the care of all the doctors in town, who agree he should have a certain medicine, and warn
his father against giving him an injection of penicillin, and that if he does, he will be exposing the
child’s life to destruction. Now, the father knows from having read a medical publication that peni-
cillin helps in cases of infection. So he relies on his own knowledge about it, disregards the advice
of the doctors since he doesn’t know the proof for what they say, and employing instead his own
personal conviction, treats the child with a penicillin injection, and thereafter the child dies. Should
such a person be tried, and is he guilty of a wrong for what he did, or not?”

Albani: [He thought for a moment and then said,] “This is not the same as that.”

Bouti: “It is exactly the same. The father has heard the unanimous judgment of the doctors, just as
the young man has heard the unanimous judgment of the Imams. One has followed a single text he
read in a medical publication, the other has followed a single text he has read in the Book of Allah
Mighty and and Majestic. This one has gone by personal conviction, and so has that.”

Albani: “Brother, the Qur'an is light. Light. In its clarity as evidence, is light like any other
words?"

Bouti: “And the light of the Qur’an is reflected by anyone who looks into it or recites it, such that
he understands it as light, as Allah meant it? Then what is the difference between those who recall
[Qur’an 16:43] and anyone else, as long as all partake of this light? Rather, the two above examples
are comparable, there is no difference between them at all; you must answer me: does the person
investigating — in each of the two examples — follow his personal conviction, or does he follow and
imitate specialists?”

Albani: “Personal conviction is the basis.”

Bouti: “He used personal conviction, and it resulted in the death of the child. Does this entail any

responsibility, moral or legal?”

Albani: “It doesn’t entail any responsibility at all.”

Bouti: I said, “Then let us end the investigation and discussion on this last remark of yours, since
it closes the way to any common ground between you and me on which we can base a discussion.
It is sufficient that with this bizarre answer of yours, you have departed from the consensus of the
entire Islamic religion. By Allah, there is no meaning on the face of the earth for disgusting bigotry if
it is not what you people have” (pages 134-148).

Bouti concludes the story by saying: I do not know then, why these people don’t just let us be, to
use our own “personal conviction” that someone ignorant of the rules of religion and the proofs for
them must adhere to one of the mujtahid Imams, imitating him because of the latter’s being more
aware than himself of the Book of Allah and sunna of His messenger. Whatever the mistake in this
opinion in their view let it be given the general amnesty of “personal conviction.” like the example of
him who turns his back to the qibla and is his prayer is valid, or him who kills a child and the killing
is “ijtihad” and “medical treatment” (page 148).

Was Shaykh Albani Faithful to his Declared Principle?

During the dialog with Dr. Bouti, Shaykh Al-Albani advertised his methodology as such:

“I examine the positions of the Imams and their evidences for them, and then take the closest of them to
the evidence of the Qur’an and Sunna.”

Yet, several minutes into the dialog, we saw that even though Shaykh Al-Albani had issued a fatwa
regarding divorce, he admitted that he wasn’t familiar with the hadith used by the four madhabs. In
this case, it was the same hadith that all four madhabs relied upon. This means had Shaykh AI-AI-
bani checked out the books of any of the four schools, he would have known about this hadith.

We find that those who follow in the footsteps of Shaykh Al-Albani betray this very principle again
and again.

Second Example

The second example has to do with the timing of the morning prayer ( fajr ) according to the Hanafi
school. A certain Shaykh said during his program on Huda 12 tv:

“In the Hanafi madhab, they tend to delay the fajr until it is a little bit light before sunrise of course... This
is against the majority of the scholars and this is against the sunna of the Prophet (pbuh) .”

This Shaykh declared the Hanafi practice, in no uncertain terms, as contrary to the sunnah . But,
what evidence do the Hanafis use for this practice? I checked out the most basic of the Hanafi books
such as al-lkthiar (volume 1 page 44) and I found that the Hanafi scholars based their view on ahad-
ith narrated by al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Maja, Al-Tabarani and Imam Ahmad.

If you look at Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, you will see chapter 117 called “Narrations about delaying the fajr
until it starts to get lighter (j=^W ^ *u. ^W)”. al-Tirmidhi narrates a hadith (number 154) on the

authority of Rabi’ bin Khadeej who said:

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: “Delay the fajr towards the end of its time
[when it starts to get lighter] for there is more reward”.

Al-Tirmidhi goes on to say that this hadith was also narrated by Shoba and [Sufyaan] al-Thawri from
Muhammed bin Ishaaq. It is also narrated by Muhammed bin Ajlaan on the authority of Aasim bin
Omar bin Qatada. There are also other ahadith regarding this subject from Abu Barza Al-Aslami,

12 After having seen quite few of their programs spreading falsehood, I wonder if the Huda (guidance)
tv is an appropriate name for this channel.

Jaabir and Bilal. al-Tirmidhi said this is a fair and authentic hadith ( haadha hadithun hasanun sa-
heeh).

Imaam Anwar Shah Kashmiri has more to say on this subject in his commentary on Jami’ al-Tirmid-
hy called “Al-Urf al-Shadhy” on page 177 of volume 1. It can be found here .

In addition, Al-Hafidz al-Suyuti al-Shafii included the above hadith of al-Tirmidhi among the mut-
awatir' 3 hadith (unanimously authentic) in his booklet called “Al-Azhaar al-Mutanathira fi al-ahadith
al-mutawatira” as was recorded by the author of I’ila al-Sunan volume 2 page 24. His brilliant re-
search can be found here .

In summary, the Hanafi scholars’ point of view is based on multiple narrations (see Nasb al-Raya of
Hafidz al-Zaylai volume 1 pages 304-313 for more details.):

1 . Hadith of Rabi’ bin Khadeej narrated by al-Tirmidhy. He declared it a fair and authentic hadith
(haadha hadithun hasanun saheeh). Al-Hafidz al-Zaylai, Al-Muhaqqiq al-Kamal bin Al-Humaam
agreed with al-Tirmidhy. Al-Hafidz Al-Suyuti declared this hadith inufawaf/r(unanimously au-
thentic).

2. Al-Nasai narrated a hadith similar in meaning and he did not comment on its authenticity. Al-Ha-
fidz Al-Zaylai declared the chain authentic (I’ila al-Sunnan volume 2 page 24-25)

Now, how can someone declare a practice based on a mutawatir (unanimously authentic) and a
saheeh (authentic) hadith (not to mention the rest of the evidence) to be against the sunnah? Even
if the Shaykh believes that hadith is not mutawatir but only authentic (saheeh), I still cannot fathom
how a “Shaykh” would dismiss all of the above evidence and label the Hanafi practice as “ contrary
to sunnah .” Just like his teacher, this Shaykh never even bothered to glance over the Hanafi books
before he gave his fatwa. One wonders if these people really believe it themselves wholeheartedly
when they say they are following the daleel (evidence). How can someone claim they are following
the dajeej when time and time again we see that they do not collect all the evidence in a given sub-

ject before they make up their minds? They are either delusional or dishonest. I cannot think of a
third possibility, can you?

Third Example

The third example has to do with the way the witr prayer is performed according to the Hanafi
school. While taking about the witr prayer during his program on Huda tv, a certain Shaykh said:

“According to the Hanafi madhab, the prayer of witr is very much similar to the maghrib prayer.... In fact
there is a specific hadith in which the Messanger (pbuh) forbade praying witr similar to the maghrib... We
have Aisha (ra), Mother of the believers, who narrated that the Prophet (pbuh) prayed all three rak’ahs
together without a middle tasshahhud . Abdullah bin Omar (ra) narrated that Prophet used to pray witr as
2 rak’ah with tashahhud and tasleem (i.e., giving selam) and then prayed a single rak’ah (witr) by itself....
Our righteous predecessors explained that praying witr [the Hanafi way] as 2 rak’ah plus tashahhud plus
another rak’ah is not acceptable or at least it is disliked (makrooh). The valid view, I am not saying the more
valid view 14 , the valid view is the way of the majority of the scholars (jumhoor )”.

Another Huda tv Shaykh made similar statements here .

What evidence do the Hanafi scholars use? Here is some of what Al-Allama al-Othmani said in his
magnificent work I’ila Al-Sunan where he included several Hadith from Aisha (ra) and others describ-
ing the witr of the Pophet (pbuh). ( I’ila al-Sunan 6 /28)

13 Mutawatir hadith is conveyed by narrators so numerous at every stage of transmission that their
sheer numbers obviate the possibility of forgery or alteration. Hereafter it is referred to as “unanimously
authentic”.

14 Look at this disgusting, appalling and ugly arrogance!!! He says, in no uncertain terms, that the
Hanafi way is INVALID. If you continue reading, dear reader, you will see that what made this “Shaykh” so
sure of himself is not knowledge but lack thereof.

Hadith #1:

“[It has been narrated] from Aisha (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not say salam after the
two rak’ah of witr”. This is narrated by al-Nasai [1:248] and he did not make any remarks [regarding its
authenticity] . In the book called “Athaar al-Sunan [2:11]” the chain of this hadith is described as authen-
tic ( isnaduhu saheeh). Al-Hakim narrates this hadith in his al-Mustadrak [1:204] as “[Aisha (ra)] said:
The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not say salam after the first two rak’ah in witr”. Al-Hakim said “This
is an authentic hadith satisfying the conditions of both Bukhari and Muslim ( hadha hadithun saheeh ala
shart al-shaykhayn)”. Al-Dhahabi agreed with al-Hakim in his “Talkhees” and said [the hadith is authen-
tic] satisfying the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim ( ala shartihima ).

Hadith #2:

On the authority of Aihsa (ra) who said: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) use to pray witr as three rak’ah.
He did not say salam except at the end (i.e. after the 3rd rak’ah)” This is narrated by al-Hakim [1:204].
He used this hadith as evidence and said: “This is how Omar bin Al-Khattab (ra) used to pray witr and
the people of Madina pray according to his witr”. Al-Dhahabi did not remark regarding the authenticity
of this hadith in his “Talkhees” [which means it is] fair ( hasan ) [according to al-Dhahabi]. It was also
narrated by al-Zaylai in his Nash al-Raya with the words “he did not say salam ( la yusallim )”. In the same
way al-Haafidz (Ibn Hajar) quotes this hadith in his al-Dirayah [114] with the words “he did not say salam
except at the very end (la yusallim illafi akhirihinna)”. Both of them (al-Zaylai and Ibn Hajar) quoted this
hadih from al-Hakim.

Athar #3:

Al-Hasan al-Basri was told: Ibn Omar (ra) used to say salam after two rak’ah of witr. He [al-Hasan] said
“Omar (ra) was more knowledgeable than him [Ibn Omar] and he [Omar] used to get up for the 3rd
rak’ah with takbir [without saying salam after two rak’ahs] ”, This is narrated by al-Hakim in al-Mus-
tadrak [1:304] both al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi did not make any remarks regarding the authenticity of this
athar.

Hadith #4:

On the authority of Abdullah bin abi Qays who said “I asked Aisha (ra) how many rak’ah was the witr
of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)? She said: He used to pray four plus three, six plus three, eight plus
three or ten plus three. He did not pray more than thirteen or less than seven”. This hadith is narrated by
[Imaam] Ahmad, Abu Dawood and al-Tahawi and its chain is fair ( isnadoho hasan ) as in Athaar al-Sunan
[ 2 : 11 ].

Regarding this hadith, the author of I’ila al-Sunan (Al-Othmani) says: “This hadith provides clear evidence
that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) used to pray witr as three rak’ah since Aisha (ra) says “four plus three,
six plus three etc.” If the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said salam after the two rak’ah of witr, then we would
expect Aisha (ra) to say “The messenger of Allah (pbuh) used to pray witr as six plus one, eight plus one,
ten plus one or twelve plus one”. The fact that every time she mentioned three rak’ah means that he (pbuh)
used not to say salam after two rak’ah of witr[, rather he used to pray witr as three rak’ah with one salam at
the end].

Hadith #5:

On the authority of Omra from Aisha (ra) “That the Messenger of Allah(pbuh) used to pray witr as three
rak’ah where he would read in the first rak’ah “al-Ala”, in the second rak’ah “al-Kaafiroon” and in the
third rak’ah “al-Ikhlas, al-Falaq and al-Naas”. This hadith is narrated by Al-Daraqutni, Al-Tahawi and
al-Hakim who declared it authentic ( sahhahahu ) as in Athaar al-Sunan[2:21]. Al-Hafidz [ibn Hajar] said
in “al-Talkhees al-khabeer [3:118]”: “Al-Uqayli said its chain is without a problem ( isnaduhu saalih) how-
ever the narration of Ibn Abbas(ra) and Ubay bin Ka’b (ra) without [the recitation of] al-Falaq and al-Nas
[in the third rak’ah] is more authentic. Ibn al-Jawzi “said that [Imaam] Ahmad and Yahya bin Maeen did
not accept al-Falaq and al-Naas’ being part of the authentic hadith”

Regarding this hadith, the author of I’ila al-Sunan (Al-Othmani) says: The statement “used to pray witr as

three” indicates that he(pbuh) use to pray three rak’ah with one salam.

Hadith #6

Abu al-Nadr narrated to us saying Muhammed (i.e., Ibn Rashid) related on the authority of Yazeed bin
Ya’far from Hasan al-Basri from Said bin Hisham from Aisha (ra) “That the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)
used to enter the house, once he prayed Isha, and pray two rak’ah. Then, he used to pray two more
rak’ah that were longer and he would finish the prayer with an additional rak’at without a break be-
tween the second two rak’ah and the last one.” This hadith is narrated by [Imaam] Ahmad and its chain
is deemed [reliable] (mu’tabar bihi). [See I’ila al-Sunan 6/34 for more detail].

Regarding this hadith, the author of I’ila al-Sunan (Al-Othmani) says: “The hadith of Abu al-Nadr pro-
vides clear evidence that he would pray three rak’ahs of witr together [without saying slalam after the first
two rak’ah ] .

Hadith #7:

On the authority of Abi Slama bin Abdirrahman who asked Aisha (ra) about the night vigil prayer ( al -
tahajjud ) of the Messenger of Allah (ra) in Ramadan. She (ra) said: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did
not pray more than 1 1 rak’ahs neither in Ramadan nor outside Ramadan. He would pray 4 long and
wonderful rak’ahs. He would pray another 4 long and wonderful rak’ahs. Then he would pray three
rak’ahs.” This hadith is narrated by Bukhari [1:154] and Muslim [1:254]

The author of I’ila al-Sunan (Al-Othmani) says: The saying of Aisha (ra) that the Messenger of Allah
(pbuh) used to pray four, followed by four followed by three proves, as the ahadith quoted earlier, that
in the collection of narrations of Aisha (ra), the witr prayer is prayed as three rak’ah connected with one
salam at the end. [See I’ila al-Sunan 6/34-35 for more detail],

Hadith #8:

As for the narration of Abu Slama and Abdurrahmaan al-A’araj on the authority of Abu Huraira as a raised
hadith ( marfoo’an ): “Don’t pray witr as three, pray it as five or seven and don’t make it look like the
maghrib prayer”. This hadith is narrated by al-Daraqutni, Al-Hakim and al-Bayhaqi. Al-Hafidz [ibn Ha-
jar] said that it is authentic satisfying the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim. [[See I’ila al-Sunan 6/36 for
additional narrations] .

The author of I’ila al-Sunan (Al-Othmani, 6/36) says: “The above hadith (and those of the similar narra-
tions) do not mean that praying witr as three rak’ah is forbidden period. How can it be? Praying witr as three
rak’ah has been narrated with authentic chains from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) as statement ( qawlan )
and as practice (fi’lan ) . In addition, as we will see later, the companions as well as the four imams reached
a consensus regarding the permissibility of witr as three rak’ah. Though they differed regarding the permis-
sibility of witr less than or more than three rak’ah. The meaning of the above hadith is that one should not
pray witr alone [three rak’ah] without praying either 2, 4 or more optional rak’as before it. Al-Qastalani said
“It is better to pray with one tashahhud than praying it with two tashahhuds”. I [al-Othmanil would say that
this interpretation is extremely absurd unsupported by any evidence ( haeed ghayat al-bu’d). This wouldn’t
occur to anyone rather it is a clear mistake. This is because his statement “Don’t pray witr as three, pray
it as five, seven or nine” clearly talks about the number of ralcahs. There is no evidence in this hadith to
the number of tahsahhud whatsoever neither implicitly nor explicitly. The meaning is. as we said, that it
is disliked to pray witr alone without praying an optional prayer before. A similar statement can be found
in al-ta’leeq al-Hasan [2:13]. Those who say that one can pray witr as a single rak’ah cannot use the above
hadith against those who say that witr is three rak’ah since there is no mention of witr as a single rak’ah
in this hadith. Rather, the apparent meaning of this hadith is that, after forbidding witr as three rak’ah, it
orders witr as five, seven or more. Those who deny the permissibility of witr as three rak’ah must then say
based on this hadith that one must pray witr five rak’ah or more but no one [worth the name] says that.”

These are some of the evidences used by Hanafi scholars. Based on the above research of al-Oth-
mani, we have several questions for the preachers of Huda tv:

Question #1 :

You said:

“Aisha (ra) Mother of the believers narrated that the Prophet (pbuh) prayed all three rak’ahs together with-
out a middle tashahhud .”

Al-Othamni (may Allah have mercy on him) collected several narrations from Aisha (ra) none of
which mentions explicitly that Prophet (pbuh) prayed witr without a middle tashahhud, as you claim.
Could you tell us where your version of the hadith is and narrated by whom? If you find that the
hadith is not narrated with those words and that they are your interpretation, presented unfortunately
as if they are part of the hadith, will you make a well publicized program on Huda tv informing your
viewers that you were wrong?

Question #2:

You said:

“In fact there is a specific hadith in which the Messenger (pbuh) forbade praying witr similar to the

maghrib”

You narrated the last part of the hadith and ignored the beginning. Here is (a version of) the full
hadith:

Abu Salama and Abdurrahmaan al-A’araj narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira as a raised hadith (mar-
foo’an ): “Don’t pray witr as three, pray it as five or seven and don’t make it look like the maghrib prayer”.

You used the latter part of the hadith to support your view that the witr should not be prayed like
maghrib yet you completely ignored the beginning of the hadith where it says “Don’t pray witr as
three”. How do you justify your view that one can pray witr as three rak’ah without a middle tashah-
hud when this hadith says not to pray witr as three rak’ah ? How do you justify for yourself this behav-
ior of taking part of the hadith that supports your view and leaving out the part that goes against it?
Betrayal of trust: You should have quoted the entire hadith and offered an explanation to the view-
ers informing them about which principle allows you to ignore the part of the hadith that contradicts
your view while using the other part to support it. You quoted a hadith and made claims based on the
hadith yet you did not give references so that we can check it to see if you are quoting the hadith or
if you are mixing your own interpretation with the hadith.

Question #3:

How do you reconcile between this hadith and those of the above authentic narrations where the
former forbids witr as three and the latter states that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prayed witr as
three rak’ah ?

Question #4:

You said:

“Our righteous predecessors explained that praying witr [the Hanafi way] as 2 rak’ah plus tashahhud plus
another rak’ah is not acceptable or at least it is disliked (makrooh). The valid view, I am not saying the more
valid view, the valid view is the way of the majority of the scholars (jumhoor )”.

Within a few minutes, you contradicted yourself three times. First you said that praying witr the
Hanafi way is not acceptable, then you said it is disliked and then you said it is not valid.

Could you tell us who among your “righteous predecessors” said the Hanafi way was not accept-
able? Please give references!

Hanafi scholars use, among others, the above eight hadith to support their view. Could you tell us
by what authority you declare the Hanafi way invalid when they base their opinion on more than one
authentic hadith?

Question #5:

Now that you know Hanafi scholars use several authentic hadith to support their view on this matter,
will you make a public declaration that you were ignorant of the Hanafi proofs and that in future you
will abstain from such baseless accusations without thorough research?

Question #6:

The Hanafi madhab is followed at least by half of this ummah. Billions of people will have rights on
you including thousands of most knowledgeable scholars whose opinions you foolishly dismiss.
Don’t you fear Allah?

You see, dear reader, not only did Shaykh Al-Albani fail to stick to the following principle of his, but
also his followers today also fail miserably as you saw in the above two examples:

Shaykh Al-Albani said: “I examine the positions of the Imams and their evidences for them, and then take
the closest of them to the evidence of the Qur’an and Sunnah.”

If such is the track record of the Shaykh himself and his “learned” followers, what about the delu-
sional ordinary energetic young fellow who has an abridged version of Bukhari under his armpit
and stops you at the threshold of the masjid after the prayer saying your action of such and such
in prayer is wrong as there is a hadith in Bukhari that says such and such? You say, well I am fol-
lowing the madhab of Imaam Abu Hanifa for example. He says: Brother, Imaam Abu Hanifa said “If
the hadith is authentic, it is my way” and so you should follow the authentic hadith in Bukhari as the
Imaam orders you to do.

Doesn’t the behavior of this young man remind you of the saying of Allah in Surat al-Kahf verse
104?

“Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good
by their works?”

Let us conclude this booklet by explaining the meaning of the saying “If the hadith is authentic, it is
my way” which is attributed to the Imams.

What Did Imams Mean by “If the hadith is authentic, it is my way”

I have seen time and time again people taking this statement of the Imams out of context. Appar-
ently, it was epidemic enough at the time of the eminent Hadith Master, Jurist, Shaykh al-lslam
Muhyiddeen al-Nawawi al-Shafii (may Allah have mercy on his soul) that he addressed the question
in the introduction of his masterpiece in 25 volumes called “Al-Majmoo’ ” which is worth its weight
not in gold but in diamonds.

Al-Nawawi says (vol 1/105-106):

“It is true that Al-Shafii said ‘if you find in my book what goes against the saying of the Messenger of God
(peace be upon him), leave my statement [aside] and give verdict according to the hadith’. Or he is reported
to have said ‘If my statement contradicts an authentic hadith, leave my verdict and act upon the hadith’ or
‘If my statement contradicts an authentic hadith, then the hadith becomes my way.’”

Al-Nawawi continues: “This statement of Al-Shafii doesn’t mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry who
comes across an authentic hadith can say this is the way of Al-Shafii and follows the literal meaning of
the hadith. Al-Shafii was addressing those who reached a level of expertise whereby they are qualified to
issue independent verdicts within the Shafii School ( mujtahidfi al-madhhab). The prerequisites of such an
individual ( mujtahid ) have previously been listed. Once a qualified expert in the Shafii school ( mujtahid )
comes across a hadith that contradicts the statement of Al-Shafii, he must make sure that Al-Shafii never
saw the particular hadith or that he wasn’t aware of its authenticity [before he can replace Al-Shafii’s verdict
with the hadith] . How can someone fulfill the above condition unless and until he goes through the books
of Al-Shafii, those of his students until he reads all the major books in Shafii School. Indeed this is a very
tough condition and those who can fulfill this requirement are very few in number [among the specialists
of the Shafii School let alone the ordinary people]. The reason for the above condition is that Al-Shafii did
not act according to the literal meaning of many hadith that he saw and he knew. [The reason he did not act
upon them] is because he had evidence that indicated a defect in the hadith, or the hadith was abrogated

( mansookh ), or the hadith was applicable to a very specific context ( takhsees ), or his information supported
a particular interpretation ( ta’weel ) of the hadith and the like. .

May Allah encircle Al-Nawawi in his mercy for he has done a beautiful job responding to the ques-
tion. So, if one must go through the major books of a madhab (in addition to being a qualified schol-
ar) before applying the above statement of the Imams, let us see what that would mean. I am going
to list some of the major books of Hanafi school here but rest assured that the other three madhabs
have just as many books.

Qur’anic Commentaries 15 specifically elaborating on rulings derived from Qur’an:

1 . Ahkam al-Qur’an by Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Musa ibn Yazdad al-Qummi al-Hanafi (d. 305 H)

2. Ahkam al-Qur’an by Abu Ja £ far Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Tahawi al-Hanafi (d. 321 H)

3 . Ahkam al-Qur’an by Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn £ Ali popularly known as al- Jassas al-Razi al-Hanafi (d.
370 H). Published in 3 Volumes.

4. Talkhis Ahkam al-Qur’an by Shaykh Jamal al-Din Mahmud ibn Ahmad popularly known as Ibn al-Siraj
al-Qunawi al-Hanafi (d. 770 H)

5. Al-Tafsirat al-Ahmadiyyah by Shaykh Ahmad al-Jonpuri al-Hindi al-Hanafi popularly known as Mulla
Jiwan (d. 1130 H)

6. Ahkam al-Qur’an by Maulana Zafar Ahmad al-Usmani al-Thanvi and other Indian scholar under the
guidance of Maulana Hakeem al-Ummah Ashraf Ali al-Thanvi. Published in 5 volumes.

7. Rawa’i al-Bayan fi Tafsir Ayat al-Ahkam by Shaykh Muhammad Ali al-Sabuni al-Hanafi (Allah Al-
mighty preserve him).

Books of Jurisprudence (fiqh). The authors discuss at great lengths the proofs and methodology for
each and every ruling. [134 volumes]:

1 . Al-Mabsoot by Shams al-Aimmah Abu Shalin al-Sarakhsi 16 (d. 490 H). Published in 30 Volumes.

2. Badai’ al-Sanai’fi tarteeb al-Sharai’ by Malik al-Ulamaa Alauddeen al-Kasani (d. 587 H). Published in
10 Volumes.

3. Al-Hidaya Sharh bidayat al-Mubtadi’ by Shaykh al-Islam Burhanuddeen al-Marghinaani (d. 593 H).
5 Volumes published as 2. This is already translated into English by Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee in 2
volumes.

4. Al-Ikhtiyaar li Taa’leel al-Mukhtaar by Imam Abdullah al-Mawsili (d. 683 H). 5 Volumes publishes as 2.

5. Tabyeen al-Haqaaiq Sharh Kanz al-Daqaaiq by Imaam Fakhruddeen al-Zaylai (d. 743 H). Published in
8 volumes.

6. Al-Binaya Sharh Al-Hidaya by Al-Allama Al-Hafidz Al-Faqeeh Badruddeen al-Ayni (d. 855 H). Pub-
lished in 13 volumes.

7. Fath al-Qadeer Sharh al-Hidaaya by Al-Imaam al-Humaam al-Muhaqqiq Al-Faqeeh Al-Usooly Al-Ka-
maal bin Al-Humaam (d. 861 H). Published in 10 Volumes.

8. Al-Bahr al-Raaiq Sharh Kanz al-Daqaaiq by Al-Imaam Al-Usooly Ibn Nujaim Al-Hanafi (d.970 H).
Published in 9 volumes.

15 There are many general Qur’anic commentaries written by Hanafi scholars. For example:

• Ta’veelaat ahl al-Sunnah by Abu Mansoor Al-Maturidi. Published in 10 Volumes. The author
(may Allah have mercy on him) is one of the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaah in aqida
(creed) and hence his commentary is an excellent resource for aqida. He authored on the subject
of creed a book called “Kitaab al-Tawheed” that is also published.

• Al-Kashshaf by Al-Zamakhshari. Published in 5 Large Volumes.

• Tafsir al-Nasafi by Imaam al-Nasafi. Published in 2 Large Volumes.

• Tafseer al-Samaqandi by Abu al-Layth al-Smarqandi. Published in 3 large volumes.

• Tafseer Aby Suud by Shaykh al-Islam Abu al-Suud Efendi. Published in 6 volumes.

• Safwat al-Tafaseer by Shaykh Muhammad ‘Ali al-Sabuni. Published in 3 volumes.

16 Imam al-Srakhsi is known as Shams al-Aimma (the star of the scholars). This is a lofty title indeed
but when you find out that he dictated the entire 30 volumes while in prison to his students just outside the
prison totally from memory without any reference books, you say Glory be to Him Who bestowed upon our
scholars these tremendous abilities to preserve for us our religion. May Allah encircle Imam Al-Sarakhsi and
other scholars with His mercy. Ameen!

9. Shark al-Laknawi ala l-Hidaya by Bahr al-Uloom al-Allama al-Muhaqqiq Al-Muhaddith Al-Faqeeh
Abdulhayy Al-Laknawi (d.1304 H) Published in 8 volumes.

10. Radd al-Mukhtaar ala al-durr al-mukhtaar by Al-Allama Khatimat al-Muhaqqiqeen Muhammed
Emeen ibn Aabideen (d. 1253 H). Published in 14 volumes.

1 1 . lila al-Sunaan by Maulana al-Allama al-Muhaddith al-Faqeeh al-Muhaqqiq Zafar Ahmad al-Usmani
al-Thanvi (d. 1394 H). Published in 22 volumes.

Here is a partial list of commentaries on the hadith collections written by the Hanafi scholars. These
are the books you would go to if you want to know what the Hanafi point of view is for a given Hadith
of the Prophet (God bless him and grant him peace) [110 volumes]:

1 . Umadat al-Qaari Shark Saheeh al-Bukhari by Al-Allama Al-Hafidz Al-Faqeeh Badruddeen al-Ayni (d.
855 H). Published in 25 volumes.

2. Ft ah al-Mulhim Shark Saheeh Muslim by Allama Shabbir Usmani (1369 H) and Muhammad Taqi Us-
mani (hafidzahullah). Published in 12+6 volumes.

3. Awjaz al-Masalik Ila Muwatta Malik by Shaikhul Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakariyyah Kandhalvi
(d. 1982 M). Published in 16 volumes.

4. Shark Sunan Abi Daawood by Al-Allama Al-Hafidz Al-Faqeeh Badruddeen al-Ayni (d. 855 H). Pub-
lished in 7 volumes.

5. Awn al-Maabud Shark Sunan Abi Dawood by Allam Sharaf al-Haqq al-Adzeemabadi (d. 1329 H ) Pub-
lished in 15 volumes.

6. Al- ' Urfal Shadhi Shark Sunan Al-Tirmidhi by al-AUam Al-Muhaddith al-Faqeeh Anwar Shah al-Kash-
miri (d. 1933 H). Published in 5 volumes.

7. Sarh Sunan Ibn Maja by Al-Hafidz Abdullah Alauddeen Moghultay al-Hanafi (d. 762 H). Published in
5 volumes.

8. Mirqaat al-Mafaatih Shark Mishkaat al-Masabih by Al-Allama Mulla Ah Al-Qari (d. 1014 H). Pub-
lished in 12 volumes.

9. Maarif al-Sunaan Shark Sunaan al-Tirmidhi by Muhammed Yusf bin al-Husayn al-Bannuri al-Hindi
(d. 1397 H). Published in 6 volumes.

1 0. Injah al-Haja Shark Sunan Ibn Maja by Muhammad Abdulghani Al-Mujaddidi al-Dahlawi (d. 1273 H).
Published in one large volume.

1 1 . Al-Taaliq al-Mumajjad ala Muwatta Muhammaed by Bahr al-Uloom al-Allama al-Muhaqqiq Al-Mu-
haddith Al-Faqeeh Abdulhayy Al-Laknawi (d.1304 H) Published in 3 volumes.

Books dedicated to the Analysis of the authenticity of hadith used in Hanafi texts [9 volumes]:

1 . Nasb al-Raya takhrij ahadith al-Hidaya by Al-Hafidz Jamaluddeen al-Zaylai (d. 762 H). Published in
5 volumes with an introduction by Al-Allama Al-Faqeeh Al-Muhaddith Al-Usuli Al-Naqid Sayfuallah
al-Maslool al-Imaam Muhammed Zahid al-Kawtahri.

2. Al-Tareefwa al-Ikhbaar bi Takhreej ahadith al-Ikhtiyar by Al-Hafidz Qasim bin Qutlubogha Al-Hanafi
(d. 879 H). Publshed in one volume.

3. Takhreej ahadith Usool al-Bazdawi by Al-Hafidz Qasim bin Qutlubogha Al-Hanafi (d. 879 H). Pub-
lished in one volume.

4. Takhrij ahadith al-Kashshaaf by Al-Hafidz Jamaluddeen al-Zaylai (d. 762 H). Published in 2 volumes.

Books that list the verdicts without the proofs [9 volumes]:

1 . Al-Fatawa al Hindiyya (aka Al-Fatawa al-Alemgeeriyya) by a committee of Indian scholars under the
leadership of al-Shaykh Nidzaam. Published in 6 volumes.

2. Fatawa Qadikhan by Fakhruddeen Hasan bin Ah Al-Ozjandi al-Farqhani. Published in 3 volumes.

What I have just listed is 250+ volumes of the Hanafi books. A Salafi who is faithful to the principle of
Shakh Al-Albani, would have to page through 1000+ volumes (assuming at least 250+ volumes per
madhab) plus sort through a quarter of a million hadith spread across 300+ books 17 and then come
to a conclusion. Inevitably, he will run into multiple ahadith whose apparent meaning might not be

17 Musnad of Imaam Ahmad alone has about 40 thousand hadith.

aligned in a given subject. In this case, one has to follow the steps of choosing one hadith over an-
other. This point is treated by Al-Hafidz al-lraqi in his commentary on the Muqddima of Ibn Al-Salah
under the title Al-Murajjihaat 18 . He states on page 245 that there are 110 steps in deciding between
two hadith if the reconciliation is not possible. He (may Allah have mercy on him) takes the trouble
and lists all 1 1 0 steps one after another taking five pages. For the promoters of the anti-madhabism,
the first step is to see if one hadith is in Bukhari or Muslim and the other is not. We want to know
what this giant of Hadith Science Al-Hafidz al-lraqi has to say about this. He says:

Step Number 102: One of the two hadith is narrated by Bukhari and Muslim ( muttafaq alayhi).

You can already see that the anti-madhabists put the cart in front of the horse. Instead of going
through all the steps, they take a shortcut and jump to step 102 ignoring all the steps before and
after 19 . If you take the trouble to read the steps 20 that Al-Hafidz al-lraqi (may Allah have mercy on

18 Steps for choosing one hadith over another.

19 Al-Hafidz Al-lraqi (may Allah have mercy on him) says that the steps are listed in oder of priority (ala

al-wala). This is confirmed by Al-Shaykh Al-Allama Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Faqeeh Al-Muhaddith Abdulfattah Abu
Ghudda in his lecture on youtube called *4^1 J) He (may Allah have mercy on him) said explic-

itly not to make step number 102 into step number 1. You can listen the lecture here (starting from 24:30).

20 Here are most of the steps listed by Al-Hafidz Al-lraqi. I highly recommend that you read these steps
at least once to have an appreciation for the tremendous effort it takes to decide between the two hadith
if one follows the way of the great scholars of this Umma. Compare this with Al-Khajand’s way of deciding
between the two hadith. You cannot help but ask yourself if Al-Khajandi came from Mars for he has no con-
nection to the Islamic scholarship. [Caution: I am including some of these steps just for information. They
are not intended to serve as a guide for anyone to decide between the two hadith. This task is reserved for
Hadith Experts and Jurists].

1. Number of chains (kathrat al-ruwah).

2. Narrator of one of the hadith has more expertise (atqan) and greater mastery of hadith (ahfadz).

3. The trustworthiness of the narrators of one of the hadith is agreed upon.

4. That the narrator was an adult at the time he received the hadith.

5. One of them received the hadith through tahdith (audition of the narration of the teacher) and
the other through ard (presentation or reciting the hadith in the presence of the teacher).

6. One of them received the hadith through sema’an (audition) or ardart (presentation) and the oth-
er through kitabatan (writing), munawalatan (having an explicit or metaphoric license for the
narration from the teacher ) wijadatan (narrating from a book without hearing from a teacher or
having received a license).

7. The narrator is relating from the original source.

8. The narrator is relating that which involves himself.

9.

10. The narrator is closer to the Prophet (pbuh) at time of reception of the hadith.

11. The narrator shadowed his teacher more.

12. The narrator heard the hadith from the scholars of his own country or locality.

13. One of the hadith has been analyzed by many (kawni ahad al-hadithayni lahu makhaarij)

14. One of the hadith has a Hijazi chain (i.e., narrators are from Hijaz).

15. Narrators of the hadith are from a school (or locality) that don’t tolerate misrepresentation

(tadlees).

16. The hadith is narrated with keywords that indicated that chain is intact such as “I heard (sa-
mi’tu)” or “he transmitted to us (haddathana )” .

17. That the narrator took the hadith from his teacher in person while seeing him.

18. That there is no disagreement regarding the hadith.

19. That the narrators did not interpolate anything in to the text.

20. There is unanimous agreement that the hadith is raised (muttafaq ala rafChi ).

21. There is unanimous agreement that the chain is intact (muttafaq ala ittisalihi ).

22. That the narrators of the hadith do not permit narration by meaning.

23. That the narrator is a jurist (faqeeh).

24. That the narrator is an author of an oft-referred reference book [in Hadith].

25. One of the hadith pertain to the subject at hand directly and literally (nassan wa qawlan) while

the other hadith requires analysis and derivation (istidlalalan wa ijtihadan).

26. That the hadith contains statement accompanied by action or practice.

27. That the hadith is in agreement with the evident meaning of the Qur’an.

28. That the hadith is in agreement with the other established prophetic traditions.

29. That the hadith is in agreement with legal analogy (qiyas).

30. That the hadith is supported by other loose (mursatj or interrupted (munqati’) hadith.

31. That the four rightly guided Caliphs (ra) acted upon the hadith.

32. That the Muslim nation (ummah) as a whole acts upon it.

33. The ruling contained in the hadith is explicitly expressed (mantooq).

34. The text of the hadith is self-explanatory (mustaqillan) and there is no need to estimate an omis-
sion (idmaar).

35. The ruling of one hadith is linked (maqroonan) to (bi) an adjective (sifatin) and the other with the
noun (al-ismij.

36. The [ruling found in the] hadith is linked (or narrated) with the interpretation of the narrator.

37. One hadith contains the ruling as a statement (qawlan) and the other as a practice (fi’lari ). The
former is preferred.

38. There is no room for specialization (lam yadkhulhu al-takhsees) .

39. That the hadith does not contain any sign of offence for the Companions (ra).

40. [The ruling of] one hadith is absolute (mutlaq) and the other is linked to a reason (sabab).

41. In one case derived word is used but not the other (kawn al-ishtiqaaq yadullu alayhi doom al-
aakhar ) .

42. One of the two disputants [of the story contained in the narration] is relating the story.

43. One of the hadith contains additional information (ziyada).

44.

45. One of the hadith has a similar narration whose ruling is agreed upon.

46. One of them indicate prohibition (tahreem) the other permissibility (ibaaha).

47. One of the results in a ruling that is in accordance with the secret law and this is preferred over
the second one but some said they are equal.

48.

49.

50. The two hadith are regarding judgment (aqdiyah) and one of them is narrated by Ali (ra) or re-
garding inheritance (faraaid) and one of them is narrated by Zayd (ra) or regarding the permis-
sible and prohibited (halaal and haram) and one of them was narrated by Muadh (ra) and so on.
The correct way of selecting, that is adapted by most, is this.

51. One of them has shorter chain (a’ ala sanadan).

52. Narrator is knowledgeable in Arabic (aliman bi al-arabiyya).

53. Narrator is a linguist (aliman bi al-lugha).

54. Narrator is better in jurisprudence (fiqh), Arabic (arabiyya) or language ( lugha ),

55. Narrator has the correct creed (hasan al-Vitiqaad !).

56. Narrator is highly God-conscience (wari’an).

57. Narrator frequented the Hadith scholars in particular and Islamic scholars in general.

58. One frequented more (akthar majalisatan lahum).

59. The trustworthiness of one is known through practical experience and the other through a tes-
timonial or through examinations of his narrations.

60. One has testimonial from someone who not only relates his narration but also puts in practice
while the other gives testimony but only relates it without practicing it.

61. One has a testimonial of trustworthiness with supporting evidence.

62. The narrator is a male.

63. The narrator is not a slave.

64. The fame of the narrator (s hohrat al-raawij.

65. The fame of the lineage of the narrator.

66. That there is no confusion regarding the narrator’s name.

67. The narrator with a single name is preferred over the one with two or more names.

68. The narrators has more praises (or testimonials in his favor).

69. The narrator is praised by many experts.

70. The narrator had a good memory until the end of his life and mix-up (ikhtilaat) has not been re-
ported about him.

71. The companion who is narrating the hadith accept Islam late. Some said it is the opposite.
Al-Amidi settled for the latter.

72. The narrator is one of the senior companions.

73. If the ruling contained in the hadith is specific (khass), it [is preferred that the hadith] is nar-
rated with context and background, if it is a general ruling, it [is preferred that the hadith] is
narrated without a context or background.

74. The narration makes explicit mention of the Messenger (pbuh).

75. ...

76. The narrator is well aware of the lofty status of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh).

77. One of the narrators is from Medina the other is from Mecca.

78.

him) listed, you will quickly realize that in order to go through them, one has to scan hundreds of
volumes of biographies ( al-taraajim ) of which almost none is available in any language other than
Arabic and some of these books are not printed but handwritten and copies are preserved in the
libraries of centers of learning around the world such as Mecca, Medina, Istanbul, Cairo, Damascus,
Laknaw etc. Common Muslims will not have access to some of these books anytime soon. In other
words, this is a tremendous undertaking.

Do you wonder anymore why Salafis themselves don’t live up to the standard that they set up for
others? This is an impossible task for a full blown scholar let alone a young graduate of a four year
college or an ordinary Muslim.

From the time of the birth of the madhabs around the second century until now, an overwhelming
majority of the Umma (Muslim nation) has been following them. In fact, for hundreds of years, there
was not a single Scholar worth the name except that he belonged to one of the madhabs including
Al-Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya and his most famous student Ibn Al-Qayyim who were both followers of the
Hanbali school.

Our Salafi brothers are free to follow whatever way or methodology they like. We just wish that they
would leave the madhab followers alone at the time the Umma is in dire need of unity. The enemies
of Islam have already enough tools that they use to divide us. Let us not, for the sake of Allah, be of
those who cause division in the name of Islam.

We must recognize the tremendous effort exhorted by the Imams and their followers to sort through
all the evidences and boil the information down for us into a set of simple rules to follow. They de-
serve our supplication day and night. May Allah reward them with gardens under which rivers flow.
Ameen!

I would like to finish by attempting to answer the question that I posed at the beginning of the booklet:

“If the Salafis themselves do not strictly follow the doled, then why do they call the madhab followers to

79.

80.

81.

82. One of the hadith is eloquent (faseeh ) and the other is not.

83.

84. The wording is explicit (haqiqij.

85. The wording is metaphorical (shibhu haqiqi ).

86. One of them is Islamic reality and the other is the customary reality or linguistic reality.

87. One of them contains customary reality the other is linguistic reality.

88. One can derive the ruling from the hadith in two different ways.

89. One can derive the ruling directly.

90. Points to the reason behind the ruling.

91.

92. It contains a threat.

93. [One of them contains] a stronger threat.

94. One of the narrations is less likely to be misunderstood.

95.

96.

97. The ruling is emphasized with repetition.

98. One of them is direct (mafhoom al-mawafaq) the other is by insinuation (mafhoom al-mukhalaj j.

99.

100. One is narrated by a chain and the other is quoted from a known book or vice versa.

101. One of them is quoted from a known book and the other is a famous hadith (mashoor).

102. One of the two hadith is narrated by Bukhari and Muslim (muttafaq alayhi) .

103.

104.

105.

their way under the slogan of “Follow the Daleel from Qur’an and Sunna!”?

I believe that the Salafi slogan of “Follow the Daleel from Quran and Sunnah” is used or abused
(inadvertently or not) to sever the link we Muslims have with the four great schools of thought. With-
out a common thread, we don’t have a leg to stand on and we become vulnerable to manipulative
sharks who would wish to steer our youth to devilish fanatic groups like ISIS. A Muslim, who adheres
to one of the madhabs, will have the correct understanding of the Islamic creed and will not be lured
with empty slogans by the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

All praise is due to Allah and may His peace and blessings be upon our master Muhammed, upon
his family, his companions and upon those who follow in his footsteps until the day of judgment.
Ameen!